How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free • Hacker News Board

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#31

Post by lngnmn » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #28

lngnmn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> philosophy became irrational This is contradiction. > Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why? Due to its goal and its method. The goal was to find the ultimate reality, as they call it. The method was of removing nonsense, not pilling up more abstract concepts. A recursive process of reaching the ultimate base case, if you wish. The culmination is, arguably, the Upanishads and to so…

> This is contradiction. No, it's really not. Philosophy is just inquiry, if the inquiry leads you away from rationalism, you can still follow it, and several philosophers have done so.

It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is.

As soon as you ceased to follow the method and start to pile up nonsense it could not be called an inquiry anymore. Some other definition is needed, and the word speculation is better candidate or a dogmatic theology.

At least, ceasing to rigorously follow the scientific method disqualifies one from being a scientist. Similarly, ceasing to follow laws of logic and to keep a "converging/recursive process of approximating to what is by removing nonsense and misconceptions" (which maintains so called connection to reality) in philosophy disqualifies one from being a philosopher.

Please, lets not start about so called ultimate existence of abstractions. Categorization of abstractions is another kind of endeavor.

The obvious example is so-called philosophy of death. No one has been there but so many has a lot to say about it.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#32

Post by wahern » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

Cozumel wrote: post #5

lngnmn wrote: post #3

Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. Unlimited, pure freedom does not exist and hence the absolute Free Will. It is an empty concept. Freedom is bound by the mind, the mind is bound by biology. Biology is bound by physics and other constraints of the environment. The Universe of Ideas is mere a hallucination. Suicide as an ultimate act of freedom, which is the canonical illustration - the onl…

Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)

I agree with the others. The way I like to put it is that the only true freedom is in the _choice_ of suicide. The corollary is that to find any meaning in life you have to first come to terms with that grim reality. If and how you come to terms with that reality shapes the meaning of your life.

You can, of course, choose suicide. But then it's lights-out and so there's not much to discuss in that case. I don't think either Sartre or Camus saw suicide as cowardly, but maybe I'm wrong about that. As far as I see it, perceiving suicide as cowardly is sort of at odds with existentialist claim. If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all.

(Of course, being animals with an intrinsic evolutionary predisposition to avoid death, suicide isn't much of a choice at all. Unless you're mentally ill, it's _really_ difficult to convince yourself to die. The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit. But I'm happy to adopt the existentialist conceit as I think existentialism says something profound and profoundly concise about how to find meaning in life.)

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#33

Post by Nomentatus » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:05 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #27

narrator wrote: post #24

I think Camus knew that there were things that he didn't know about political economy while Sartre was more certain that the vast oversimplification of reality that is marxist economics could somehow be hammered somehow into the mold of reality. The problem of economic calculation is deceptively easy to hand-wave away.

The problem with the communists wasn't the "oversimplification of marxist economics", after all capitalist policies are based on similar oversimplifications. It was the power struggles, and the controlling party elites.

Other than human nature, it had everything going for it.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#34

Post by bykovich » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:10 PM UTC

samirillian wrote: post #18

I always thought the real intellectual differences related to Marxism were between Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, the former having introduced Sartre to Marxism and later publicly breaking with him for his "ultra-bolshevism." Camus and Sartre seemed to have more personal differences, viz., Sartre generally being an asshole. Among other things, he considered Camus a notch beneath him intellectually, and Ive always personal…

I recall reading a criticism of Sartre essentially to the effect of "he elevated anxieties of the early 20th century to eternal truths." It's an insightful observation that does double labor, serving both as grounds for serious concern about Sartre's work and as an explanation for much of its popularity.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#35

Post by ZenoArrow » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #29

pmoriarty wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember that these were two French intellectuals, debating in a country, culture, and time period where Socialism vs Communism was very much a live issue. That's not really true in the United States today, where even Socialism is generally held in contempt, and Communism is considered to be a demonstratably failed ideology which doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously. On top of this, intellectualism…

I agree with everything you said. But I'd suggest that not only are the debates in academia alive, they're actually too vigorous and too radical. I think one of the contributors to the current political situation is the increasing influence of academia on politics and the law. Instead of having a few big ideas that we wrestle with, every politician and lawyer is a little Leninist bent on burning everything down in fa…

>"A whole new layer of public policy institutions and media outlets feeds off and disseminates the half-baked ideas. There's never any time or energy to winnow the chaff. And so it's effectively poisoning the social and political culture."

Can you name one cultural meme that's emerged from academia in the last 10 years? I certainly can't. I simply don't think academic debates have that great a cultural impact in our modern society, regardless of this increased vigor you're referring to.

On the other hand, I can think of recent cultural memes that have emerged from the political sphere, pushed by a diverse range of people (from corporate interests to grass roots activists). Very few politically active people seem to be waiting around for answers from academia, they've got their own agendas to push.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#36

Post by narrator » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:31 PM UTC

Nomentatus wrote: post #33

coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the communists wasn't the "oversimplification of marxist economics", after all capitalist policies are based on similar oversimplifications. It was the power struggles, and the controlling party elites.

Other than human nature, it had everything going for it.

The subtler arguments against socialism are not amenable to sound bites. The one that was initially penned in the 1920s and has stood the test of time the best is "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"[1]. This kicked off the Socialist calculation debate[2] which was on-going during the 20th century. It was largely settled in favor of the anti-central planners with the collapse of communism and Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms in China.

[1]https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-com...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#37

Post by ZenoArrow » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:43 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #32

Cozumel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)

I agree with the others. The way I like to put it is that the only true freedom is in the _choice_ of suicide. The corollary is that to find any meaning in life you have to first come to terms with that grim reality. If and how you come to terms with that reality shapes the meaning of your life. You can, of course, choose suicide. But then it's lights-out and so there's not much to discuss in that case. I don't think…

>"If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all."

A cowardly choice is still a choice, it's still a possibility. Freedom is freedom to choose, it imposes no limits on what motivates you.

Aside from this, cowardly doesn't seem to fit suicide, if we're going for negative connotations then self-absorbed seems more appropriate IMO.

>"The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit."

What do you mean by this? What freedom do you feel you lack?

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#38

Post by fspear » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #15

RamshackleJ wrote: post #2

what are the public academic debates that we are having today? creationism vs evolution? populism vs neo-liberalism? I hate to reminisce but having two existentialist philosophers debating about socialism vs communism makes me jelly.

You have to remember that these were two French intellectuals, debating in a country, culture, and time period where Socialism vs Communism was very much a live issue. That's not really true in the United States today, where even Socialism is generally held in contempt, and Communism is considered to be a demonstratably failed ideology which doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously. On top of this, intellectualism…

>On top of this, intellectualism itself is viewed with great suspicion by many Americans, who much prefer to hear celebrity gossip, or watch sports and reality shows. As a result, the "public" intellectual debates of the era are dumbed down and infotainmentized by a media mostly concerned with ratings and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

What a brave new world we live in...

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#39

Post by pm90 » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:50 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #29

pmoriarty wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember that these were two French intellectuals, debating in a country, culture, and time period where Socialism vs Communism was very much a live issue. That's not really true in the United States today, where even Socialism is generally held in contempt, and Communism is considered to be a demonstratably failed ideology which doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously. On top of this, intellectualism…

I agree with everything you said. But I'd suggest that not only are the debates in academia alive, they're actually too vigorous and too radical. I think one of the contributors to the current political situation is the increasing influence of academia on politics and the law. Instead of having a few big ideas that we wrestle with, every politician and lawyer is a little Leninist bent on burning everything down in fa…

I don't think it is as fragmented as you explain it to be. There has been a broad agreement that the principles of the New Deal work; they have worked before and they would work now. However, there has been a deliberate effort by (a few) of the ultra-rich to subvert New Deal policies and this has been done through the creation and continued funding of institutions dedicated to what Krugman calls "movement conservatism". I would suggest 2 books: "Dark Money" and "Conscience of a Liberal" to get a better idea of the world that we operate in right now.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#40

Post by pm90 » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 10:53 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #35

wahern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said. But I'd suggest that not only are the debates in academia alive, they're actually too vigorous and too radical. I think one of the contributors to the current political situation is the increasing influence of academia on politics and the law. Instead of having a few big ideas that we wrestle with, every politician and lawyer is a little Leninist bent on burning everything down in fa…

>"A whole new layer of public policy institutions and media outlets feeds off and disseminates the half-baked ideas. There's never any time or energy to winnow the chaff. And so it's effectively poisoning the social and political culture." Can you name one cultural meme that's emerged from academia in the last 10 years? I certainly can't. I simply don't think academic debates have that great a cultural impact in our…

Cultural memes aren't really the measure of progress, or worth, of academia. And "academia" itself is a pretty broad term: are you referring to Philosophy, or the Social Sciences or what?